It's not as if climate change would be reverted or even stop if we stopped burning fossil fuel now. There is a lag on the effect, and the situation would still be getting worse for a century or so.
The comparison is between all the extra future damage of burning even more than we already have vs the economic gains today.
Australia is a moderate player in global terms, but decarbonising is literally a symbolic gesture with real negative consequences. The only response that makes any sense is to focus on better bushfire prevention methods.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Germany showed enormous leadership with their Energiewende. It was expensive, convinced nobody and has had what appears to be a marginal effect on their actual emissions emitted. Hoping that Australia charging into the breach would help in any meaningful way is wishful thinking. Business as usual until economic forces cause the US and China to switch away from fossil fuels is what is going to happen, we can't make their decisions for them. Fight that diplomatically, sure. But tank our standard of living for a symbolic gesture and there is going to be very stiff resistance.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-s...
There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest.
To argue that the quality of life would be hit by changing govt funding priorities is like arguing against the construction of roads before automobiles were mainstream.
Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable. Leave it to the "major players", so China and USA will just give away the technology for free? Why do any research at all, ever, there will always be someone better...
Cars are unsafe, expensive and make cities unwalkable. I would rather Australia beefed up its train network & river freight rather than this mania for cars.
> There is legitimate, marginally viable technology honed and perfected in Australia that always remains on the cusp because of endemic favourable treatment for fossil fuel and lack of strong support and willingness to invest.
Sounds pretty marginal, he might not be factoring in the consequences for grid stability in his calculations. It isn't just a raw numbers game.
> Also the suggestion that Australian research cannot make a difference I find unfathomable.
We are doing research, it probably is making a difference. If you go to UNSW the first building you run in to is the great big energy research facility. It wouldn't be too hard to get support for more research into better energy if anyone cared. And for all people blame the Australian right for coal they are the ones who push for dropping the effective ban on nuclear power in Australia and maybe doing some R & D on that front. It was much more promising technology than solar for most of the lest 50 years.
But the raw numbers are not doing the same sort of damage as a 10% increase in general energy costs. So far it has been 1,516 homes. Australia will have something like 5,000,000 homes. That is bad, but entirely tolerable averaged over the continent - we build about that many homes in a month or two. The damage is a small % of GDP contained to one year.
We need to improve our bushfire management & crisis response, but there is no need to do anything rash.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/woma...
Ouch. That is bad. It does require a response. However it is close enough to normal that it wouldn't change any rational decisions about our energy mix. This crisis is small enough that we only need to respond to the threats directly, without winding in a decarbonisation scheme that doesn't actually do anything.
[0] https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/top...
I take issue with this. Australia's contribution to GHG emissions does contribute to warming. Even if it's only 1.3% (greater if you take exports into account [0]) it has an effect.
Also, more than 20% of global emissions are emitted by countries with lower overall emissions than us [1]. If they all used our excuse [2], do you think that would be acceptable?
We also have among the highest per capita emissions in the world [3].
And I haven't even talked about historic cumulative emissions, which have to be taken into account for an equitable solution.
Australia is already suffering from the effects of a climate emergency, with conditions predicted to get orders of magnitude worse this century. We should be taking a lead in the decarbonisation effort so we can urge the rest of the world to do the same, for our sakes, as well as theirs.
Instead, our government sabotaged negotiations at COP25 [4], and is acting for the short-term benefit of a few fossil fuel miners, even to the point of wanting to make secondary boycotts illegal [5]. They are criminally negligent at best, and an absolute disgrace.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/fossil-f... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-01/australia-called-a-fr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... [4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/australia-climate-car... [5] https://reneweconomy.com.au/morrisons-crackdown-on-climate-p...
The compliment of 20% is 80%. Those countries could all drop their emissions to 0 and any problem from emissions would still be 80% there and so still be about as bad as it ever was. So yes everyone smaller than us can use the same excuse. What matters policy-wise is the leadership in China & the United States.
> We also have among the highest per capita emissions in the world [3].
Yeah. We don't have any nuclear plants. Puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. We should fix that up too and build some. Labor needs to be more vocal about supporting nuclear energy.
There is a link between counties that make heavy use of nuclear energy and countries that have low emissions and air free of coal dust.
> Australia is already suffering from the effects of a climate emergency, with conditions predicted to get orders of magnitude worse this century. We should be taking a lead in the decarbonisation effort so we can urge the rest of the world to do the same, for our sakes, as well as theirs.
Germany already did that, it didn't impress very many people; it looked expensive and didn't actually help their emissions much. We should restrict ourselves to trying things that are likely to work and actually address the issues we are facing, which decarbonisation does not. There isn't anyone here who can seriously argue that Australia decarbonising would have had any impact on these bushfires. If Australia were completely decarbonised and had stopped exporting coal they would still have happened.
A positive actions in anyone's book happens to be just waiting another decade until it becomes economic to build photovoltaic solar; according to the Finkel report.
In NSW tourism is worth $40B[2]. The situation is similar there.
Say this costs between 10 and 20% of that. That is roughlt $10B in direct costs this year alone.
Additionally your 10% additional cost of energy is nonsense. Australia hasn't had a functioning energy policy is 10 years, which is the primary reason costs are so high. Any kind of policy which both sides of politics agree on (at least roughly!) will provide investment certainty and cut that cost.
[1] https://www.business.vic.gov.au/tourism-industry-resources/t...
Finkel review [0], page 201, Levelised Cost of Electricity in 2020 estimates solar at ~91 $/MWh vs ~76 $/MWh supercritical coal.
So you were right that I was using an unsourced number. Now I've sourced it and am revising it to 20%. And I have a source that says if we just twiddle our thumbs for 10 years we should get a much better deal, with no extra cost given we produce somewhere between 1 and 5% of the worlds emissions depending on how we account for exports.
[0] https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/independent-re...
A future where (according to exactly the same reference!) solar will be cheaper than coal by 2030 (~61 $/MWh vs ~76 $/MWh supercritical coal).
I'd also note that this report was done in 2017, and the LCOE for solar has decreased more rapidly than expected. This Lazard report done only a year later puts large scale solar at US$36-43/MWh (= A$51-63/MWh).
> I'd also note that this report was done in 2017, and the LCOE for solar has decreased more rapidly than expected. This Lazard report done only a year later puts large scale solar at US$36-43/MWh (= A$51-63/MWh).
If it started to make commercial sense to build solar in 2017 then it really doesn't make sense to change anything we're doing after these bushfires since any problem will will resolve itself. The underlining point is that this crisis isn't a catalyst to rethink our energy policy. The two things just aren't realistically linked. We don't emit enough carbon for it to be relevant for global pollution.
Which is why you start transitioning now, so we get a resilient energy system.
it really doesn't make sense to change anything we're doing after these bushfires since any problem will will resolve itself
No, because the current government actually wants to build new coal fired power stations and open new coal mines.
The underlining point is that this crisis isn't a catalyst to rethink our energy policy.
Yes you keep parroting this line. But I noticed you ignored the tourism industry costs above as well as the arguments about how successful the German transition had been.
But we could be supplying SE Asia with clean energy instead: https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/australia-po...
We produce over 1% of the world CO2 emissions, one of the highest in the world, and we worked hard to wreck the Paris agreement.
And you think all we can possibly do is to try to prevent bushfires?
Maybe we could do that and try to become world leaders in clean technology?
So sick of this argument.
Well, we hope there's only three. The long range forecasts weren't looking great, with lower than average levels of rainfall up until April.
Global warming is important, but only one environmental problem, so important to consider here, but not the only environmental issue.
Contributing to every environmental issue, including this one, is overpopulation. Humans have altered every continent, reducing biodiversity, introducing species that don't handle local climates as well, or too well and displace existing ones, making extinct species, and so on. I'm no expert, but the situation in Australia looks related to huge cities and lots of farms supporting a much larger human population than had ever lived there reducing biodiversity and resilience to fire, exacerbated by global warming.
People fear discussing overpopulation because they only know of China's policy and eugenics, as did I until I learned of the successful, non-coercive policies of Thailand, Iran, Mexico, etc that increased peace, prosperity, and stability.
I first learned of successful noncoercive birthrate reducing policies through Alan Weisman's excellent Countdown https://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Last-Best-Future-Earth/dp/0..., and of the critical importance of population through Limits to Growth https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19....
Those examples show that we can peacefully and stably lower birth rate to increase peace and prosperity and ease all other environmental problems. Steady-state following de-growth works more successfully on a full finite planet than pushing economic and population growth forever, which exacerbates problems like these and increases their impact on humans and other wildlife.
I get sad when I’m in a parking lot and I see a flock of Geese walking around the empty parking lot trying to dodge traffic. To me it really encapsulates the overall issue. Nobody thinks twice about it.
Australia is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. And the land that is burning is (relatively undisturbed) native forest, not farmland or ‘huge’ (?) cities.
i.e. very to do with overpopulation.
With zero net overseas migration, the population would stabilise at 27 million then fall slightly. This is the most important change that could be made to assist the Australian environment, but sadly discussing immigration is completely disallowed in mainstream Australian media.
There is no need to limit birthrates - they are already sub-replacement in Australia. Just cut immigration.
Immigration puts a greater demand on land for that purpose. Plus, a greater population in Australia means a net increase in global emissions - since the vast majority of migrants are from three poorer countries: India, China, Nepal.
Widespread illegal logging is occurring - but the logging is by a Government-owned corporation, so it receives little attention: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-21/victorian-forests-app...
Citation needed. Why is 7.7 billion people a problem? IMHO earth as it is today can accommodate 9 or 10 billion people without problems. (And like you, I have no citation as well.)
We currently utilise 50% -- the best, most fertile, productive 50% -- of the earth's landmass. What remains is marginal land, scrub, forests, permafrost, mountains, savannah, deserts etc, or is simply too hot or too cold for us to live comfortably. We're mistreating land with over fertilisation and suffering steady soil loss everywhere that's adopted post-war industrial agriculture. Many of those bits of rubbish land, forests and wildlife preserves we're not using are chopped up by pipelines, roads, rail affecting viability of the species broken up and interfering with natural migration and regrowth. Wildlife and wilderness has no chance.
We're clear cutting forest to make monoculture grazing land, or to plant thousands of acres of uninterrupted soya, palm oil and other major crops. As environmental awareness grows we're doing that at accelerated rate. Europe was clearcut in liveable areas in the Middle Ages, yet we've shown little to no sign of most noticing our colossal destructive impact. We just started importing big trees and colonising.
Borneo has gone from essentially untouched in the 1980s to 50% cleared now. Earth overshoot day puts us as needing 1.7 earths to sustain the current rate of regrowable use (it only considers replaceable resources, not mining and minerals). 10bn would push that up to over 2.
A sustainable population would probably be 1 or 2bn, if we want to allow a little room for the unforeseen.
Alice: “There’s no evidence that humans have contributed to climate change.”
Bob: “Well, actually, X, Y, and Z.”
Alice: “I don’t accept those. There’s no GOOD evidence...”
And here we have a throwaway account using emotional rhetoric like “climate alarmist monster.”
This kind of comment is not anywhere close to the standard we have come to demand on HN. Doubly so for a topic where vast sums of money are to be made by oiligarchs if we delay doing anything about fossil fuels.
That does not, in and of itself, invalidate any particular criticism. But it could explain why a throwaway account uses questionable rhetoric.
My point was entirely around a particular fallacy in your argument, and the tone. My goal was not to suggest you are wrong, but to suggest that both you and HN would benefit from a different style of discussion.
If you would like some solace, here’s something: A fallacious argument does not prove its point, but equally, a fallacious argument does not disprove its point either. So when someone points out a fallacy in your argument, do not take it as saying you are wrong. They are only saying that the particular argument you are using is not logically persuasive.
Having made my points, I do not need another turn. Carry on as you will.
Which of you do you believe?
1. That CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? 2. That increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't influence global temperatures? 3. That human activity hasn't increased CO2 concentrations significantly.
If you answer those, we'll be able to know where your head is a bit better.
FWIW, no-one has ever argued that CO2 levels is the only factor effecting climate.
In my post, I directly answered that. So, you did not read my post. So, all I could do here to respond would be just to repeat my post which is silly.
Just read my post.
I also addressed well and directly your other questions. Again, read my post.
If you still have any questions, then ask away.
I don't know what graph you are talking about, but the IPCC reports are not based on a random graph from a movie, and the arguments and evidence they present are vastly more credible than your comment.
Of COURSE you do. It's THE GRAPH of the Antarctic ice core record going back ~1 million years in Gore's movie. Likely Gore drew the graph accurately enough. An Obama science adviser also drew essentially the same graph. Also the graph is in the movie I referenced, the Swindle.
It's just a graph of CO2 and temperature from the ice core record -- there is likely only one such set of data.
Gore just misread the graph. His misreading was deliberate deception, incompetence, ignorance, or some such -- your choice -- but in any case wildly WRONG.
Going back ~1 million years, that's about all the data there is. The IPCC can do this and that, but still for the history it's nearly all just that graph.
For more data, there are basically just three more:
First there is the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Second there is the cooling from about 1944 to about 1970, cooling while CO2 from WWII, pulling out of the Great Depression, and the economic boom of the 1950s was increasing.
Third there is the warming of maybe 0.9 F from about 1900 to the present which MIT Prof R. Lindzen, in the Swindle movie, claims for good theoretical reasons, just canNOT be CO2 warming.
That's the data. That data has to do with both CO2 and temperature.
We measure temperature with thermometers and related instruments in degrees F, C, or K.
We do NOT measure temperature with hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods, ice bergs, glaciers, penguins, polar bears, fur seals, coral reefs, fish catches, etc.
Bluntly and plainly, the CO2 and temperature record provide no meaningful, serious, credible, or significant support that CO2 from human activities will significantly warm the planet.
So, we can try to proceed on theory from physics, chemistry, etc. So, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave its infrared spectrum. So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared. CO2 does NOT absorb in the visible, i.e., does NOT absorb visible light.
Far and way, H2O is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
It is a long logical, rational path from the CO2 spectrum to claims of global warming.
To follow this path, basically we need to do some computations from basic physics and chemistry, the radiation from the sun, the surface of the earth, the oceans, etc. In that way we test the theory.
Well, the computations were done by some dozens of teams. I gave the graph of the results: Nearly all the teams predicted rapid increases in temperature which have not happened. So, the tests of the theory failed. In science, when such a test of the theory so generally fails, we junk the theory.
So, net, we are left with no successful test of the theory that CO2 from human activities will cause significant global warming.
Net, we are left with no evidence, from history or theory, that CO2 from human activities will cause significant global warming.
The IRCC has nothing better, neither history nor theory. Pictures of ice bergs and polar bears do not count.
So, good news: We get to f'get about CO2 from human activities causing any trouble at all. We get to go ahead and burn fossil fuels, drive gasoline powered cars. We get to save money trying to stop warming the earth from CO2 from human activities. So, no need for subsidies or regulations in favor of solar panels or wind turbines.
Good news.
If you have any serious questions, then ask away.
Take the good news. E.g., save the $90+ T E. Warren and AOC want to spend to keep the earth from warming.
One of which is, don’t complain about downvotes. Everyone gets to choose how to vote, and neither you nor I are allowed to tell them that they shouldn’t downvote our comments.
I’ve been here for a decade or so, I get downvoted into the negatives sometimes. It’s how HN works.
But thanks for your single example of a counter viewpoint.
Summer in Australia always comes with one or two big fires in at-risk rural areas over the months from December to February.
Queensland and New South Wales were burning heavily by early December. And now Victoria and South Australia have joined in as well and we're still only just into the second month of three. It's unprecedented.
The one thing that may provide back handed comfort is that so much has burnt that it will be a few years before enough 'fuel' is regrown for fires of this scale to be possible again.
I'm wondering the unknowable tipping point at which the cost of rebuilding from bushfires outweighs the costs of de-carbonising the economy. Part of the problem with that is who / where the costs are borne / spread amongst.